#rushdie

“And so, as I stand today to receive a peace prize, I ask myself, “What does the world of fable have to tell us about peace?”

The news is not very good. Homer tells us that peace comes after a decade of war, when everyone we care about is dead and Troy has been destroyed. The Norse myths tell us that peace comes after the Ragnarök, the Twilight of the Gods, when the gods destroy their traditional foes but are also destroyed by them. And the “Panchatantra” tells us that peace—the death of the owls and the victory of the crows—is achieved only through an act of treachery. To abandon the legends of the past for a moment and look at this summer’s twin fables, the film “Oppenheimer” reminds us that peace came only after two atom bombs, Little Boy and Fat Man, were dropped on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; while the box-office monster called “Barbie” makes clear that unbroken peace and undiluted happiness, in a world where every day is perfect, exist only in pink plastic.

And here we are gathered to speak of peace, when war is raging not very far away—a war born of one man’s tyranny and greed for power and conquest—and when another bitter conflict has exploded in Israel and the Gaza Strip. Peace, right now, feels like a fantasy born of a narcotic smoked in a pipe. Even the meaning of the word is a thing on which the combatants cannot agree. Peace, for Ukraine, means more than a cessation of hostilities. It means, as it must mean, a restoration of seized territory and a guarantee of its sovereignty. Peace, for Ukraine’s enemy, means a Ukrainian surrender. The same word, with two incompatible definitions. Peace for Israel and for Palestinians feels even further away.

(…)

If my work has been influenced by fables, there is also something decidedly fabulist about a peace prize. I like the idea that peace itself might be the prize—that this jury of wise benefactors is so infinitely powerful that they are able to bestow upon a single individual, and no more, one year’s award of peace. True, blessed peace, not trivial contentment, paix ordinaire, but a fine vintage of Pax Frankfurtiana, a whole year’s supply of it, delivered to your door, elegantly bottled. That’s an award I’d be very happy to receive. I am even thinking of writing a story about it, “The Man Who Received Peace as a Prize.”

(…)

My fate, over the past many years, has been to drink from the bottle marked Freedom and therefore to write without any restraint those books that came to my mind to write, and now, as I am on the verge of publishing my twenty-second volume, I have to say that on twenty-one of those twenty-two occasions the elixir has been well worth drinking. On the remaining occasion, namely, the publication of my fourth novel, I learned—many of us learned—that freedom can create an equal and opposite reaction from the forces of unfreedom, and I learned, too, how to face the consequences of that reaction, and to continue, as best I could, to be as unfettered an artist as I had always wished to be. I learned, too, that many other writers and artists, exercising their freedom, also faced the forces of unfreedom, and that, in short, freedom can be a dangerous wine to drink. But that made it more necessary, more essential to defend. I confess there have been times when I’d rather have drunk the Peace elixir and spent my life sitting under a tree wearing a blissful, beatific smile, but that was not the bottle the peddler handed me.

We live in a time I did not think I would see in my lifetime, a time when freedom—and in particular freedom of expression, without which the world of books could not exist—is everywhere under attack from reactionary, authoritarian, populist, demagogic, narcissistic, careless voices; when places of education and libraries are subject to hostility and censorship; and when extremist religion and bigoted ideologies have begun to intrude in areas of life in which they do not belong. And there are also progressive voices being raised in favor of a new kind of bien-pensant censorship, one which appears virtuous, and which many people have begun to see as a virtue. So freedom is under pressure from the left as well as the right, the young as well as the old. This is something new, and made more complicated by our new tool of communication, the Internet, on which well-designed pages of malevolent lies sit side by side with the truth, and it is difficult for many people to tell which is which; and our social media, where the idea of freedom is every day abused to permit, very often, a kind of online mob rule, which the billionaire owners of these platforms seem increasingly willing to encourage—and to profit by.

What do we do about free speech when it is so widely abused? We should still do, with renewed vigor, what we have always needed to do: to answer bad speech with better speech, to counter false narratives with better narratives, to answer hate with love, and to believe that the truth can still succeed even in an age of lies. We must defend it fiercely and define it as broadly as possible, so, yes, we should of course defend speech that offends us; otherwise we are not defending free expression at all. Let a thousand and one voices speak in a thousand and one different ways.

To quote Cavafy, “the barbarians are coming today,” and what I do know is that the answer to philistinism is art, the answer to barbarianism is civilization, and in any war it may be that artists of all sorts—filmmakers, actors, singers, and, yes, those who practice the ancient art of the book—can still, together, turn the barbarians away from the gates.”

“The survey, conducted from October 19 to October 25, found that 70 percent of Russians would support Putin should he decide to end the conflict this week.

However, if ending the war would include Russia returning the territories that it has occupied and annexed throughout the conflict, only a third (34 percent) of respondents said they would support that decision.

(…)

In its latest poll, the Levada Center surveyed 1,608 people across Russia. The results suggest that 20 months into Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, public support for the conflict has dropped significantly.

The results are significant given that stringent laws passed in Russia in March 2022 made criticizing the Russian military and the war in Ukraine illegal. Many are believed to answer public opinion polls on the topic dishonestly, fearing retribution.

(…)

An August poll by the Levada Center showed that just 38 percent of respondents "definitely" support the actions of Russia's armed forces in Ukraine.

That is in contrast to results from a February 2022 survey from the research organization, conducted when Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Results from that poll, which asked the same question, showed 48 percent of respondents said they "definitely" supported the army's actions in Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said on multiple occasions that he will not comply with the Kremlin's non-negotiable conditions for peace talks, including that Kyiv must accept the September 2022 annexation of four of its regions—Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia—following referendums called by Putin that were deemed illegal by the international community.

Ukraine has said that any peace deal must make void Russia's annexations of its territory, and that the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, which Putin annexed in 2014, must be reversed.

Zelensky has pushed a 10-step "peace formula," which includes radiation and nuclear safety; food security; energy security; the release of all prisoners and deported persons; implementation of the U.N. Charter and restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity and the world order; withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities; restoration of justice; countering ecocide; preventing escalation; and finally, confirmation of the end of the war.

Russia has maintained that any peace deal must include "the entry of four [Ukrainian] regions into Russia," something that Kyiv is unlikely to budge on.”

“The US and Israel are exploring options for the future of the Gaza Strip, including the possibility of a multinational force that may involve American troops if Israeli forces succeed in ousting Hamas, people familiar with the matter said.

The people said the conversations have been impelled by a sense of urgency to come up with a plan for the future of Gaza now that a ground invasion has begun. A second option would establish a peacekeeping force modeled on one that oversees a 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty, while a third would see Gaza put under temporary United Nations oversight.

(…)

“We can’t have a reversion to the status quo with Hamas running Gaza,” Blinken, who will travel to Israel on Friday, told the Senate Appropriations Committee. “We also can’t have — and the Israelis start with this proposition themselves — Israel running or controlling Gaza.”

(…)

Israeli officials have said repeatedly that they don’t intend to occupy Gaza, but they’ve also said that continued rule by Hamas is unacceptable after the Oct. 7 attack in which the group killed 1,400 Israelis and took more than 200 people hostage. There’s also little evidence that the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank, would be willing or able to take over Gaza. Hamas has been designated a terrorist group by the US and the European Union.

Ophir Falk, a foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said, “A number of options have been raised for the day after Hamas. The prerequisite for all of them is that Hamas be destroyed. Once Hamas is destroyed, all the options discussed are based on the premise that Gaza be demilitarized.”

All options hold political peril for President Joe Biden and for other nations, including Gulf States, not to mention Israel. Biden believes that putting even a small contingent of American troops in harm’s way could prove politically risky, according to a person familiar with his thinking, who added that the US isn’t close to making such a decision. It’s also not yet clear whether Arab states might be interested in participating, another person said.

Ultimately, Biden and other US officials say that an endpoint that involves a sovereign Palestinian state is necessary, but exactly how to reach that outcome has barely featured in discussions, either public or private. And Israel says its military operation could last months, and will result in a buffer zone around Gaza.

According to the people familiar with the matter, one option would grant temporary oversight to Gaza to countries from the region, backed by troops from the US, UK, Germany and France. Ideally, it would also include representation from Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, the people said.

A second option is a peacekeeping force modeled on the Multinational Force and Observers group that operates on and around the Sinai peninsula, enforcing the terms of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Israel believes that this idea is worthy of consideration, according to a person familiar with the matter.

A third option would be temporary governance of the strip under a United Nations umbrella. This would have the advantage of the legitimacy bestowed by the UN, but Israel views it as impractical, according to a person familiar with Israel’s thinking, who added that Israel believes that little good has come from the world body.

Earlier this month, Israeli Minister Benny Gantz labeled UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres a “terror apologist” after Guterres argued that the Oct. 7 attacks “did not happen in a vacuum.”

Salman Rushdie attack suspect: What investigators are saying

Law enforcement officials briefed on the investigation into Salman Rushdie’s attack told ABC News that “a preliminary investigation into the suspected perpetrator’s probable social media presence indicates a likely adherence or sympathy towards Shi’a extremism and sympathies to the Iranian regime/Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.” Author Salman Rushdie listens during an interview with Reuters…

Salman Rushdie, Indian-born British novelist and essayist, remains hospitalised but he has been removed from a ventilator.His condition is improving but he suffered serious injuries to his liver, severed nerves in an arm and an eye, after being stabbed on stage during a literary event while preparing to speak last Friday, 12 August.He has always been a supporter of freedom of expression and…